<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for A second opportunity to make climate pricing fair]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Adam Stein http://www.grist.org/article/cap-and-trade-and-fairness-for-working-families/ Thu, 07 Feb 2008 23:54:34 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/cap-and-trade-and-fairness-for-working-families/1 Good intentions, questionable policy

I'm glad you made the point about majoritarian politics. Really the essential benefit of cap-and-dividend programs, as I see it, is their ability to invest a large portion of population in solutions to climate change. Turning cap-and-dividend into a social welfare program not only removes this benefit, it actively undermines it by dragging in the freighted politics of income redistribution.

Everyone is eyeing the pot of money from auctioned allowances. I personally find some potential recipients (e.g., the poor) to be a lot more sympathetic than others (e.g., energy companies), but I see a lot of wisdom in skipping the whole debate and just giving the bulk of it back to the consumers who are actually bearing the cost.

www.terrapass.com/blog

]]> Good intentions, questionable policy

I'm glad you made the point about majoritarian politics. Really the essential benefit of cap-and-dividend programs, as I see it, is their ability to invest a large portion of population in solutions to climate change. Turning cap-and-dividend into a social welfare program not only removes this benefit, it actively undermines it by dragging in the freighted politics of income redistribution.

Everyone is eyeing the pot of money from auctioned allowances. I personally find some potential recipients (e.g., the poor) to be a lot more sympathetic than others (e.g., energy companies), but I see a lot of wisdom in skipping the whole debate and just giving the bulk of it back to the consumers who are actually bearing the cost.

www.terrapass.com/blog

]]> Comment #2 by amazingdrx http://www.grist.org/article/cap-and-trade-and-fairness-for-working-families/ Fri, 08 Feb 2008 00:15:23 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/cap-and-trade-and-fairness-for-working-families/2 Trading

Hedge fund trading in the mortgage industry was supposedly allowing "free" markets to enable more people to own homes.  We see how that worked.

Now trading carbon is supposed to help the poor and stop GHG disaster?  By using the buzzword, "dividend"?  This would be a joke if the political/financial powers that be were not so enamored with it.  

Make it too complicated to understand and it seems great?!?  That's the operative tactic here.  Get corporatarian think tankers to turn it into a bumpersticker and get that trading up and running!

Barack has fallen for it.

The only safe and sane way to encourage renewable alternatives to GHG disastrous energy policy status quo?  Subsidize renewable kwh directly, with 10 cent per kwh direct payments to homeowners, farmers, and businesses who produce clean energy.

Take the money to pay for these subsidies from subsidies for huge multinational energy companies with record profits.  

Meanwhile US bankers go begging to sell their businesses to global capital funds (to further the bail out from the hedge fund enabled mortgage crisis), a trillion dollar middle east oil fund and another huge Norwegian oil based capital fund.  Will the big money pressure US to remain on the oil energy path?  That's my guess.  Big interview on CNBC today all about this situation.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

]]> Trading

Hedge fund trading in the mortgage industry was supposedly allowing "free" markets to enable more people to own homes.  We see how that worked.

Now trading carbon is supposed to help the poor and stop GHG disaster?  By using the buzzword, "dividend"?  This would be a joke if the political/financial powers that be were not so enamored with it.  

Make it too complicated to understand and it seems great?!?  That's the operative tactic here.  Get corporatarian think tankers to turn it into a bumpersticker and get that trading up and running!

Barack has fallen for it.

The only safe and sane way to encourage renewable alternatives to GHG disastrous energy policy status quo?  Subsidize renewable kwh directly, with 10 cent per kwh direct payments to homeowners, farmers, and businesses who produce clean energy.

Take the money to pay for these subsidies from subsidies for huge multinational energy companies with record profits.  

Meanwhile US bankers go begging to sell their businesses to global capital funds (to further the bail out from the hedge fund enabled mortgage crisis), a trillion dollar middle east oil fund and another huge Norwegian oil based capital fund.  Will the big money pressure US to remain on the oil energy path?  That's my guess.  Big interview on CNBC today all about this situation.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

]]> Comment #3 by Jon Rynn http://www.grist.org/article/cap-and-trade-and-fairness-for-working-families/ Fri, 08 Feb 2008 00:33:21 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/cap-and-trade-and-fairness-for-working-families/3 I know this sounds pie-in-the-sky...

...but as a different kind of "majoritarian" idea, why not provide the kinds of infrastructure, particularly in cities, that poor people need, and that would have the consequence of keeping their costs down?  

For instance, good public transit (even free) would eliminate the need for a car, helping the environment and even reducing transportation costs; what about building new housing, with geothermal underneath and solar on top, so that the poor, again, would have lower energy bills (and better housing), and help the environment.  

If you throw affordable, high-quality child-care for working poor in the mix, I'm sure the poor would be in better shape, not to mention that it would be a great way to show the rest of the country (and world) that green technologies are practical.

]]> I know this sounds pie-in-the-sky...

...but as a different kind of "majoritarian" idea, why not provide the kinds of infrastructure, particularly in cities, that poor people need, and that would have the consequence of keeping their costs down?  

For instance, good public transit (even free) would eliminate the need for a car, helping the environment and even reducing transportation costs; what about building new housing, with geothermal underneath and solar on top, so that the poor, again, would have lower energy bills (and better housing), and help the environment.  

If you throw affordable, high-quality child-care for working poor in the mix, I'm sure the poor would be in better shape, not to mention that it would be a great way to show the rest of the country (and world) that green technologies are practical.

]]> Comment #4 by zacaroni http://www.grist.org/article/cap-and-trade-and-fairness-for-working-families/ Fri, 08 Feb 2008 04:32:44 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/cap-and-trade-and-fairness-for-working-families/4 bust a cap or trade it

"We'll tell you at what rate you can dispense death."

-William McDonough, wisely noting what truly happens when the government regulates pollution.  

Isn't it outrageous that we even have to set limits on something so atrocious?  It's like saying: "Genocide is wrong, so we're going to limit the number of citizens a dictator can murder to 10,000."  

]]> bust a cap or trade it

"We'll tell you at what rate you can dispense death."

-William McDonough, wisely noting what truly happens when the government regulates pollution.  

Isn't it outrageous that we even have to set limits on something so atrocious?  It's like saying: "Genocide is wrong, so we're going to limit the number of citizens a dictator can murder to 10,000."  

]]> Comment #5 by mlappe http://www.grist.org/article/cap-and-trade-and-fairness-for-working-families/ Sun, 10 Feb 2008 09:55:12 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/cap-and-trade-and-fairness-for-working-families/5 Avoid the piñata

Alan is right that any successful climate policy must consider how increased energy costs will affect households.  A carbon cap is like a regressive sales tax on necessities, regardless of whether permits are given away or auctioned.  The CBO estimates that a 15% reduction in CO2 emissions will cost the average household $1,280.    When emissions are reduced 80% or more, the costs to households will rise far above this.

While the CBPP proposal would help protect the poorest of the population, the political disadvantages of Cap and Buffer should be take seriously.  We must keep in mind that the race to halt the planet's warming will be a marathon, not a sprint.  For a climate policy to work, it has to remain in effect for at least forty years, or ten presidential terms.  When prices climb in response to the diminishing supply of fossil fuel energy, the backlash from the public will put heat on our lawmakers to pull the plug on the program.

Additionally, leaving 85% of auction revenue for the government to do with as it pleases is not necessarily a good thing.  According to a study by Friends of the Earth, the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act would return almost $400 billion in auction revenue to the fossil fuel industry, prolonging our addiction to dirty energy and making it harder for clean energy like wind and solar to compete.

Alan's image of an exploding piñata is apt, but we want to shape policy that avoids that type of money grabbing.  A policy that returns auction revenue equally to all citizens, regardless of income level, would avoid a corporate feeding frenzy.  Furthermore, equal dividends would create a clear incentive to conserve; those families that guzzle fossil fuels will get back less than they pay, while families that conserve will come out ahead.  Creating a policy that is transparent, inclusive and fair has the greatest likelihood of success.

]]> Avoid the piñata

Alan is right that any successful climate policy must consider how increased energy costs will affect households.  A carbon cap is like a regressive sales tax on necessities, regardless of whether permits are given away or auctioned.  The CBO estimates that a 15% reduction in CO2 emissions will cost the average household $1,280.    When emissions are reduced 80% or more, the costs to households will rise far above this.

While the CBPP proposal would help protect the poorest of the population, the political disadvantages of Cap and Buffer should be take seriously.  We must keep in mind that the race to halt the planet's warming will be a marathon, not a sprint.  For a climate policy to work, it has to remain in effect for at least forty years, or ten presidential terms.  When prices climb in response to the diminishing supply of fossil fuel energy, the backlash from the public will put heat on our lawmakers to pull the plug on the program.

Additionally, leaving 85% of auction revenue for the government to do with as it pleases is not necessarily a good thing.  According to a study by Friends of the Earth, the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act would return almost $400 billion in auction revenue to the fossil fuel industry, prolonging our addiction to dirty energy and making it harder for clean energy like wind and solar to compete.

Alan's image of an exploding piñata is apt, but we want to shape policy that avoids that type of money grabbing.  A policy that returns auction revenue equally to all citizens, regardless of income level, would avoid a corporate feeding frenzy.  Furthermore, equal dividends would create a clear incentive to conserve; those families that guzzle fossil fuels will get back less than they pay, while families that conserve will come out ahead.  Creating a policy that is transparent, inclusive and fair has the greatest likelihood of success.

]]>